030 罗马书 7章7至9 上帝赐下律法的目的
030 罗马书 7章7至9 上帝赐下律法的目的
小孩：奥古斯丁的故事。小时偷别人的梨子然后丢给猪。小朋友猜奥古斯丁为什么要偷梨子？
-
- 罗7:7-9
- 罗7:7 这样，我们可以说什么呢？难道律法是罪吗？[1]…
- 问：为什么保罗要如此问？
- 上文：V5…罪恶的情欲借着律法在我们的肢体里发动 …
- 罪利用了上帝的律法，但律法是圣洁、公义、良善的（罗7:12）
- 律法在使徒们的眼中是重要的
- 保罗害怕我们误解他把律法视为邪恶或罪
- V7…难道律法是罪吗？绝对不是。
- 接下来保罗要解释上帝赐下律法的目的，是叫人知罪 (罗3:20、7:7)
- 保罗V7-25使用“我”来描述他所经历的真理。
- 保罗对律法与罪的经历，也是我们罪人经历到的。
-
- V7..如果不是借着律法,我就不知道什么是罪;…
- 问：难道不借着圣经的律法就不知道什么是不对？什么是罪？
- 问：其它宗教也有指出人有罪。那又如何解释？
- 问：保罗之前不是说没有圣经的外邦人也知道什么是恶吗？
- 罗1:29这些人充满了各样的不义、…贪心、…32他们虽然明明知道行这些事的人，上帝判定他们是该死的…
- 保罗在V7不是在说，没有圣经的外邦人就不知什么是恶。
- 外邦人也有律法的功用刻在他们心里（罗2:14-15）能知善恶
- 良心作见证控告他（罗2:15）
- 保罗的意思是要指出，若不是律法，人无法清楚知道这些恶事是得罪上帝
- e.g.唯有受圣经启示影响的其它宗教，才会指出人是得罪上帝的。
-
- 【出20:17不可贪恋人的房屋；也不可贪恋人的妻子、仆婢、牛驴，并他一切所有的。】（新译本：不可贪爱你邻舍的..）
- 不是指你不可以拥有很多房子，有很多工人、有很多汽车
- e.g.约伯、亚伯拉罕、大卫、
-
- 问：什么是贪恋？
- A 贪恋是心里想得到属于别人的东西
- e.g.属别人的东西不愿卖给你。心里恋着他的东西
- e.g.亚哈王有所有的地，却贪恋拿伯的田地（王上21:2-6)
- e.g.属别人的位置、地位、权利，但心里想得过来
- e.g.教会的纷争往往也是以主的名义贪恋权利、地位而来的
- e.g.世界的战争很多都是因为贪婪引起
- e.g.希望父母早一点离世，好拿他们的财产
- e.g.如果你有两个孩子。你把玩具给其中一个，你就会看见贪恋在另一个小孩身上发动
- e.g.为什么他有，而我没有？我要他得玩具。
-
- B 贪恋是心里想要上帝不允许你拿的东西。（撒上15:19、耶22:17）
- e.g.亚当与夏娃吃了上帝不允许他们吃的
- e.g.亚干拿了他不应该拿的东西 （书7:20-21）
-
- C 贪恋就是你想要的东西,大到一个地步成了你的上帝
- 心里想要那东西，成为了你的上帝支配你
- e.g.心里想要那东西，想到快要发疯了
- 贪心是拜偶像一样 (弗5:5，西3:5)
- e.g.金钱成为上帝(太6:24)、成为一生的追求（传5:10-11、提前6:6-10、来13:5）
-
- D 贪恋往往会引发嫉妒、偷窃、埋怨、纷争、凶杀 等等
-
- 小总：圣经律法叫我们明白我们犯的罪，其实得罪的是上帝
- 小总：圣经律法清楚定义罪。e.g 例如：什么是“贪”
-
- V9 在没有律法的时候，我是活的；…
- 保罗描述那时候的他，还以为自己是活的！[6]
- 那时的他并不认为自己是无可救药的罪人,
- 问：到底保罗在什么时候是没有律法？
- 一些解经家认为是保罗13岁成为 bar mitzvah 律法之子 「才受诫命的约束」
- 保罗自小就受律法装备了（徒26:4-5）。所以可能不是指他小时。
- 问：有没有可能是指保罗做法利赛人时的情景？
- 问：法利赛人不是更懂得律法吗？法利赛人又怎么没有律法呢？
- 腓3:5…就律法说，我是法利赛人；6就热心说，我是逼迫教会的；就律法上的义说，我是无可指摘的。
- 注：那时保罗还没有信主耶稣前，是逼迫教会的
- 当时的保罗认为自己就律法上的义说，是无可指摘的
- 那时还没信主的保罗不觉得因律法诫命，他就死了。
- 那时的保罗只是明白律法的表面，而没有真正明白律法的用意是叫人知罪定罪。
- 那时的保罗自以为义，罪好像是死的，而他是活的。
- 那时许多法利赛人都认为按他们外在行为，他们是完全守的住律法的。
- e.g.十诫：不拜偶像、守安息日、孝敬父母、不杀人、不奸淫、不偷窃、不作假见证害人、
- e.g.路18:18-21 有一个少年的官告诉耶稣说：上帝的诫命他都从小都遵守了。
- 有可能是：他重生后，才经历到律法是要让他知罪、定他得罪。
- 他意识到十诫的最后一诫命“不可贪恋”指向人的心[7]
- 他经历到罪如何借着诫命在他里面发动各样的贪心
- 后来明白除了靠主耶稣，没有人可以靠律法得救
-
- 感谢主：我们会看见我们里面的黑暗。才意识到我们多么需要耶稣。
- 感谢主：我们也经历到我们无法靠自己的行为或守律法来得救
- 感谢主：今天我们是靠耶稣基督被称义
- 感谢主：因着基督，我们不是在律法之下，而是在恩典之下 （罗6:14、罗7:6）
总结：
-
- 律法让我们看见我们真正得罪的是上帝
- 律法让我们明白什么是罪
- 律法来是要让我们透过她，认识到罪是活在我们里面
[1] 7 The sustained polemic of the apostle in 6:14; 7:1–6 respecting the impotency of the law to deliver from sin, the aggravation and confirmation which law adds to our bondage to sin, the antithesis between law and grace, and the exordium accorded to grace as insuring that sin will not have dominion over us might appear to imply a depreciation of law as in itself bad. This is the reason for the questions of verse 7. Murray, J.
[2] ἐπιθυμία [BDAG] 1. a great desire for someth., desire, longing, craving b. of desire for good things, have a longing for someth. Phil 1:23 w. great longing 1 Th 2:17 2. a desire for someth. forbidden or simply inordinate, craving, lust
[3] All people have some idea of right and wrong; a moral code of some sort is almost universal. People who do not have the law may well know that they have done wrong. But people without God’s law do not see wrongdoing as it really is, as sin against God. There is a great difference between the breaching of a human moral code and sin, that evil thing which God forbids. It takes the law to show wrongdoing to be sin.
[4] Here is described for us the process by which the apostle had come to the knowledge that covetous lust was operative in his own heart. Murray, J.
[5] It is the last clause of verse 8 that clarifies and validates what precedes: “for apart from the law sin is dead”. There is no verb in the Greek. The translators in this case have inserted “is” and have construed Paul as enunciating a general principle. The propriety of this interpretation is disputable. It would seem that the verb to be inserted should be “was”. Paul is describing his experience. … Paul here in verse 8 is not speaking about the non-existence of sin but of sin as existing, yet as dead. And what he is referring to is the inertness, inactivity, in that sense deadness, of sin, in contrast with the coming to life of sin to which he will presently refer. Murray, J.
It is the last clause of verse 8 that clarifies and validates what precedes: “for apart from the law sin is dead”. There is no verb in the Greek. The translators in this case have inserted “is” and have construed Paul as enunciating a general principle. The propriety of this interpretation is disputable. It would seem that the verb to be inserted should be “was”. Paul is describing his experience. … Paul here in verse 8 is not speaking about the non-existence of sin but of sin as existing, yet as dead. And what he is referring to is the inertness, inactivity, in that sense deadness, of sin, in contrast with the coming to life of sin to which he will presently refer. Hence “apart from the law sin was dead” is the preferable rendering and is to be interpreted as that which is true in the realm of psychology and consciousness.16 We are now in a position to understand the whole verse. Prior to the process here delineated the sinful principle in the apostle was inactive. Then the commandment “Thou shalt not covet” entered into his consciousness—it came home with power and authority. Sin then was aroused to activity. It was no longer dead. And it took occasion to stir up all manner of covetous lust. It did this through the instrumentality of the commandment; the sinful principle was aroused to all manner of desire contrary to the commandment through the commandment itself。 Murray, J.
[6] When the apostle says, “I was alive apart from the law”, the word “alive” cannot be used here in the sense of life eternal or life unto God. He is speaking of the unperturbed, self-complacent, self-righteous life which he once lived before the turbulent motions and conviction of sin, described in the two preceding verses, overtook him. We are not able to determine the time in the apostle’s career when the commandment began to arouse the sinful passions (vs. 5). But there is no need or warrant to restrict what he describes as being “alive apart from the law” to the years of unreflecting childhood (cf. Phil. 3:4–6). Murray, J.
It is difficult to see how a Jewish boy from a pious family could ever be apart from law, for from his earliest days he would have some instruction in the way to serve God…But he may mean apart from law, in the sense that there had been a time in his experience when he had not realized the force of the law’s demands, a time when he was “under no conviction of sin” (Hendriksen) Elsewhere he himself refers to a time when he had been “blameless” as regards the righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6)…This will be not unlike the rich young ruler who, confronted with the law’s demands, said, “All these I have kept since I was a boy” (Luke 18:21). Leon Morris
[7] 其实十诫的每一条诫命背后的精意是从人的内心开始（太5:21-22）
[8] The commandment is that mentioned in verse 7, “Thou shalt not covet”, and the coming of the commandment is undoubtedly the coming home to his consciousness and the registration in consciousness by which sin took occasion to work in him all manner of covetous lust. Murray
[9][9] This dying cannot be equated with the dying to sin by union with Christ in his death (6:2) for two reasons. (1) The dying of verse 9 is a dying wrought through the instrumentality of the law, the commandment. It is not so with death to sin; the latter is through the gospel and union with Christ. (2) It is not death to sin that is in view here but the revival of sin, the arousing of the inherent depravity to overt and more virulent activity. “Sin revived” is the opposite of “we died to sin”. Murray, J.